Some problems require a unique organizing scheme. One that allows leaders to apply singular focus and commitment to a complex or difficult problem.
Typically referred to as a Task Force, the idea is to assemble a group of highly skilled team members who will work together to aggressively address a problem until it is resolved. Once the task is completed, the group disbands.
These temporary work groups often cobble together experts from across the organization who are granted the autonomy, resources, and time to act quickly and decisively to complete the task.
When an issue involves urgency, complexity, and exceeds the demands of the regular team, leaders turn to these temporary work groups to make headway quickly and to provide the rapid action and intensity that thorny problems require for resolution.
Time-sensitive projects, decisions that demand deeper exploration, problems requiring unusual coordination, and issues demanding specialized knowledge are all ripe for utilizing a Task Force to achieve the desired outcome.
In most cases, people who serve on the task force do so while still performing their normal functions on the team. This means leaders are asking Task Force members to go above and beyond their normal duties.
Most team members do so enthusiastically because the request to serve on a Task Force is viewed as a recognition of their expertise and offers a pathway to make an even bigger contribution to the team’s success.
Task Forces differ from Committees and other working groups that manage ongoing issues with regular meetings and rotating members.
Task Forces handle temporary, mission-specific goals and one-off events or problems with urgency, while Committees represent diverse viewpoints and are expected to examine all options and deliberately decide on the best one.
This takes time, lengthy debate, and compromise—all qualities that a Task Force avoids.
Interestingly, organizations with a tradition of establishing Committees rarely use Task Forces to increase speed, urgency, and action.
They generally prefer not to distinguish between experts or to elevate one problem over others. Such organizations prioritize the benefits of stable membership and regular meetings to provide the oversight for managing issues.
The steady progress of a committee is preferred over the rapid fire of a Task Force operating with less oversight and more freedom to act without team consensus.
Committees often exhibit more bureaucratic traits due to their more permanent structure and broader representational mandates.
Whereas Task Forces prioritize speed and expertise, a committee relies on more formal processes and the rules and administrative steps that come with them.
While some organizations utilize both organizing structures, it is much more common for a workplace to rely almost exclusively on one or the other. That’s a mistake.
Committees still excel in sustained roles such as risk management, compensation, and policymaking, where institutional knowledge helps to drive accountability.
But organizations that are too Committee-focused often give up the agility and speed in decision-making that allows them to compete.
Mixing the use of Task Forces and Committees allows an organization to maintain the oversight it desires with the agility and speed in decision-making it needs to compete.
Which tradition does your organization depend more heavily on?
A Daily Dispatch from the Front Lines of Leadership.
